Get Test Result

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: it lists the exact categories of data returned and positions the tool as a diagnostic read for failed runs. This enriches the agent's understanding of what to expect without contradicting the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences with no waste. It front-loads the primary purpose and the data returned, then gives the usage scenario and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is logical.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It enumerates all the return categories (status code, timing, response body/headers, assertion outcomes, extracted variables, script output) and provides the source of the id. The only minor omission is how to establish project context, but that is likely a global convention and does not hinder invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter 'testResultId' is already described as 'Public Id (Guid) of the test result.' The description adds value by pointing to the sibling tool get_test_results as the source for this id, which is not present in the schema. This compensates beyond the baseline 3, though it doesn't add format or syntax details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('one test case's result inside a run'), and enumerates exactly what data it returns (status code, timing, response body/headers, assertion outcomes, extracted variables, script output). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_test_results (plural) and get_test_run (the run itself) by specifying this is for a single test case within a run.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'This is the read to make when a run failed and you need to know why.' It also tells the agent where to get the required id: 'Get the id from get_test_results.' Additionally, it notes the prerequisite 'Requires project context,' giving a clear operational condition. No explicit exclusion is needed because the usage context is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.